The ETS is a tax and a tax specifically on energy. If increased taxation is what we need now, why then did the Prime Minister actually hand out $10 billion last week?

It seems to me that the impact of the ETS on overall fiscal policy would indeed be as he stated – if one assumes that all other revenue and expenditure streams are unchanged.

But doesn’t additional taxation coming in from the ETS simply mean that the overall budget position can remain the same just by changing other parts of fiscal policy? Several seemingly obvious options:

McCrann seems to have overlooked any of the compensation/redistribution elements to the Government’s ETS that would see the money go back out of the public coffers.

Perhaps the additional revenue could be frittered away/spent on worthless/worthwhile (delete as appropriate based on political ideology) Government initiatives such as keeping people healthy, making people smarter, looking after people who have fallen on hard times, etc.?

Perhaps another area where the Government collects money could be adjusted so they collect less?

In other words, the ETS is about creating a tax system where companies’ tax burden is determined, to some extent, relative to their environmental impact. On the other hand, fiscal policy is about the overall tax revenue relative to Government expenditure. The two principles appear to be largely independent of one another and yet both within the Government’s control – why assume that they would only act on one without addressing implications for the other?

The McCain campaign has announced it’s running yet another TV ad hitting Obama for his “celebrity” and for wanting to raise taxes.

…

The script: ANNCR: Life in the spotlight must be grand, but for the rest of us times are tough. Obama voted to raise taxes on people making just $42,000. He promises more taxes on small business, seniors, your life savings, your family. Painful taxes, hard choices for your budget. Not ready to lead. That’s the real Obama.JOHN MCCAIN: I’m John McCain and I approved this message.

Wrong again:

When it says that Obama voted “to raise taxes on people making just $42,000,” that was on a non-binding budget resolution vote that didn’t actually raise or lower taxes.

…

According to Obama’s economic plan, he would raise taxes only on those making more than $250,000 per year, and would provide tax cuts to those making less than that.

And the Obama camp starts to respond in the right way:

Says Obama spokesman Hari Sevugan in a a statement: “This ad is a lie, and it’s part of the old, tired politics of a party in Washington that has run out of ideas and run out of steam. Even though a host of independent, nonpartisan organizations have said this attack isn’t true, Senator McCain continues to lie about Senator Obama’s plan to give 95% of all families a tax cut of $1,000, and not raise taxes for those making under $250,000 a single dime. The reason so many families are hurting today is because we’ve had eight years of failed Bush policies that Sen. McCain wants to continue for another four, and that’s what Barack Obama will change as President.”

The word “lie” needs to be used whenever it applies, and this was a clear case of intentionally false information from McCain.

Fiscal conservatism, hurrah. How about cutting needless bureaucracy and putting the savings into providing meaningful services to the citizens? And then spending any more that needs to be spent to make sure the services are up to scratch?

How does someone as rational as this manage to exist in the environment of the GG?

The Labor leader can end the auction today by announcing no new bribes, and focusing, instead, on public spending.

Neither leader can be sure when voters will awaken from their apparent slumber and notice the politician making one announcement too many. It could be Rudd today if he goes too far.

…

Here’s a reform to think about: all future elections should set a time limit on spending – a bribes blackout period, so to speak.

Policies should be announced by, say, the end of week three of the campaign. This would leave the run home to the ballot box for persuasion only.

It would make more sense to hold the leaders’ debate after all the promises are on the table. Pollsters tell us that a significant portion of voters make up their minds only in the final fortnight. Surely this is the zone when politicians should be made to earn their living without the crutch of a handout.

…

It is, of course, tempting to throw all election policies into the one pile to come up with an even larger number. Tempting, but misleading because a global total would include both handouts to voters and public expenditure on their behalf.

In the present economic climate, the Reserve Bank is more interested in the cash that is going straight into people’s pockets because, on present trends, that money is almost certain to be spent. Public expenditure, by contrast, rarely materialises on time, making it less likely to trouble monetary policy.

This is Rudd’s dilemma. If he produces another handout today, he risks the unwanted title of briber-in-chief.

There’s nothing more that needs to be said, really – I hope Kevin Rudd is listening.